What is hard for everyone to understand is if tax cuts are this miraculous economic stimulus, why do they need to be offset at all?
Shouldn't the increase in revenue that comes from the stimulative effect essentially pay for them?
So what you're conceding by saying they need to be offset with spending cuts is that tax cuts do not generate increased revenues, therefore they also do not generate increased economic activity, therefore people aren't keeping more of what they earn in order to spend in the consumer economy.
The data shows that every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years, household debt increases, personal savings decreases, and the federal deficit expands. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
So that means:
a) Tax cuts do not stimulate economic activity; people don't keep more of what they earn and then spend that in the consumer economy, generating increased revenues.
b) Offsetting tax cuts with spending cuts is a concession that tax cuts do not deliver on their economic promises.
c) Tax cuts result in larger deficits, which are then used as an excuse to cut spending, which then results in increased borrowing and/or bankruptcies due to higher education costs and health care costs.
d) If tax cuts increased consumer spending, then we would see increases in revenues and economic activity...except that revenues declined from 2017 vs. 2018, and economic activity was no better than it was in 2015 when we didn't have a tax cut (and consequently in 2015, we reduced the deficit and created more jobs; 2018 saw the deficit expand and job growth slow)
So how come nothing you predict or promise of your tax cut philosophy ever comes to pass? Simple; you're a fucking moron.
Bookmarks